|From:||Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Re: Fixes to index pages|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > > Tom, here are the changes I was thinking about to clean up a few areas
> > > > in index pages tables. I will hold the patch until 7.2.
> > >
> > > What happened to our discussion about keeping t_info bit 13 unused??
> > I wasn't going to reserve it in the patch. I figured I would make all
> > the items/flags match, and if someone wants to reserve it, it is easy to
> > do in one place. I imagine 7.2 is going to be dump/reload anyway so the
> > decision can be made during development cycle. I basically didn't want
> > to leave a bit gap and leave it unnamed because it could cause
> > confusion.
> You have added the following TODO recently.
> * Add deleted bit to index tuples to reduce heap access
> Where would you have the deleted bit in IndexTupleData ?
Wow, seems like everyone liked the deleted bit idea. :-)
I would put it in bit 13. I would adjust the bit masks in the itup.h
file. I assume you are asking why I don't do it in the patch, and the
reason is because I have no code to update the bit field. I think the
bit should be reserved at the time the code is added.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
|Next Message||Hiroshi Inoue||2001-02-22 01:19:14||Re: Re: Fixes to index pages|
|Previous Message||Hiroshi Inoue||2001-02-22 01:01:49||Re: Re: Fixes to index pages|